Health Alert

Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

Through the internet and the media generally, allegations of complicity by the US government in the 9/11 attacks are intensifying.

We've just finished a new series called The Conspiracy Files which will start this Sunday on BBC Two at 9pm with a programme about 9/11.

We’ve talked to a number of the people who question the official version.

Dylan Avery, the 23-year-old film-maker behind the internet film Loose Change says the US government “will willingly kill its own citizens for whatever gain it seems necessary and then lie as much as they need to cover it up.”

Alex Jones, a Texan nationally syndicated radio talk show host, tells the programme “9/11 is an inside job… a false-flag terror operation.”

Jim Fetzer, former US marine and retired university professor, who helped found a coalition of academics called Scholars for 9/11 Truth repeats the Sherlock Holmes quotation “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

..

But we found that simple requests, such as asking to see the plane wreckage of flight United 93 at Shanksville, or flight American Airlines 77 at the Pentagon, were refused after months of delay by the authorities.

Yet if we had been able to film the wreckage from flight AA77 we would have had extremely strong evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Trying to prove or disprove these alternative theories is not easy.

Officials are loathe to engage, thinking that any response will only fan the flames of popular conspiracy theories, and yet no response seems to be worse still.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files travels across the United States investigating the allegations and talking to witnesses wherever possible.

Be sure to check out their blog entry for the full details, and to post some comments.

You can find the preview clip here as well, however I have had no luck so far in getting it to play. Expect to see a downloadable version of this clip popup as soon as it starts working.

However, if this documentary is as good as the preview suggests, this will hopefully prove to be a massive boost for the movement.

The documentary follows one of the most popular - if not, the most poular - shows on UK tv -- Top Gear (8pm - 9pm GMT). A couple of weeks ago it boasted a bigger audience than Big Brother (c. 7.1 million).

Fingers crossed!

I'll get this show recorded and uploaded to google vid and i'll post a link on the almighty blogger as soon afterwards as possible.

Sorry to sound sarcastic, but my expectation is that this documentary will be designed to appear serios - but will focus on strawmen theories like the Pentagon and Dr. Fetzer. Just the fact that people watching this documentary might seek out Dr. Fetzer's work on Scholars is a huge liability.

surely you've seen the latest NIST report on the flying pig phenomenon?

Joking aside, if this documentary causes 0.1% of its audience to go beyond skepticism and turn to activism, it will have been worthwhile.

I, personally won't learn anything new from it but it will highlight the collapse of building 7 - something that the sheepish majority are still unaware of. Then they have to ask themselves "why didn't I hear about WTC7 before?".

I do agree, though, that the mention of star wars beams and hologram planes will have a negative effect - but hopefully outweighed by the inescapable evidence that Jones and Avery SHOULD be putting forward.

I actually believe Alex Jones is the most credible. He just gets upset and angry (LIKE HE SHOULD) and people take that as him being crazy for being passionate about something in this world of zombies.
Not to take anything away from DRG. Tarpely and Bowman are certainly high on the list as well.

no doubt about it, they have been going HARD on the "global warming myth" lately. Alex is a patriot but hes clearly no scientist. not that i am either but when 95% of the worlds scientists agree on something i find it kind of hard to disagree with them. and when most of the 5% of scientists that disagree with global warming get their funds traced back to the oil industry it doesnt look so good.

Check that, why is anyone voting this post down? Those are FACTS right there! Wake up! How ironic is this? "Global Warming" is happening but it's not as described by the mainstream media, Tony Blair and Al Gore. IT IS LARGELY THE SUN! PLUTO HAS GLOBAL WARMING! Christ, how can people become aware of one manipulation (9/11) and yet still fall for others? Pathetic.

(Please my fellow truthers, as we here are focused upon 911 and it's immediate tangents for the most part, let's not forget how others are/have already moved on into a new world just waiting for us to complete our task of seeing justice done and returning Truth back upon a pedestal of proper respect. Should we succeed in bringing about a paradigm shift in politics, the terms of war, and the overriding socioeconomics of this part of humanities interactions.... be prepared for the flood of revolutionary information currently being held back by the mud of our paralyzing status quo. Thus, the extraordinary potential of humanity realized afterwards, may serve as our prize for success in surviving our current intellectual poverty.)

There were plane parts recovered at all 3 crash locations. Whether you think there were enough, or whether they were of the right type, etc. is one thing, but the misnomer that there were no plane parts at all is incorrect and is an easily debunkable myth that we do not need to be spreading.

...when it's so much more effective at keeping us divided to withhold / fudge information on the flights and watch us argue over whether or not there were planes and what kind of planes, et cetera...

The flaw in this plan is that by doing so, "they" also manage to clue in to anyone who's paying attention with less than half a brain that "they" are up to something... Then again maybe "they" want us to think/know they're up to "something" and be unsure and afraid of exactly what - and therefore easier to manipulate?

The video was probably removed because it had footage from NBC or ABC. Both of them have entered into agreements with youtube/google to keep their copyrighted footage from being spread online. This is the same reason why some clips of WTC7 were removed from youtube about 2 months ago.

The creator of that video can't claim copyright (as he does in this email) because he does not own the copyright for the footage he used from other news agencies.

Just another reason why we shouldn't depend on these video sites solely, because they could just scrap it all at once.

OK. I get Mr. Infomercial and I know who Jerome Hauer is but, who's voice is that in the thrid segment from msnbc?

--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

Craig Bartmer was visiting during the taping. After about an hour, when Guy was leaving, Craig cornered them both and told them, more or less, "You know, this isn't just conspiracy theory, and as a person who was there, I think what you're saying is kinda offensive."

Craig tried reasoning with him about Building 7 and the EPA. Guy didn't want a thing to do with it.

But as I know of the possible misuse once again, I set the facts straight beforehand and warned all newsplayers involved in 911 "conspiracy theory" here in Germany so far
not to do this sorta shit again because of our critical mass long time passed.

Here is my email (in german language):

(please, other german readers, write similar mails to ZDF and other news!)

Hello HeuteJournal! From Mathias Broeckers I experienced that her together with the BBC a Doku about "conspiracy theories to the 11.9." turned. The BBC wants to radiate these on coming Sunday. Their transmission date is not certain apparent. Also in Erinnung to your last reporting of 8.9.2001 the "9/11: Conspiracy theories hold by "http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/inhalt/31/0,4070,3976223-5,00.html S.A.: http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/26/0,1872,3955130,00.html (unfortunate actually, they had brought before not one day to one "relative to" neutral contribution Loose CHANGE?) I would like to mark the following: If they quote therein again "experts", as Professor Armin stake Traughber, then asks only under the condition to explain exactly what these experts make and are paid of whom these. Mr. stake Pfahl-Traughber is coworkers of the protection of the constitution, and not only presented as of you "politics scientists" to ask for true a sneezing realm a coworker of the protection of the constitution after the possibility from state terror to. The before-GET-RISING up "theses" are the bright Hohn to over-bid from projection hardly more. "complexes, unexplainable events promote simple explanations". Comes me in such a way before like a default from the white house, because it is used again and again, in order to discredit all Zweifler. It is nevertheless the black-and-white - property bad who for us is not - is against us and terrorist Rethorik, which appeals rather to simple mind. My life is with sucked. "conspiracy theories" certainly not more simply become, and to today white I also not the answer to all questions, like one this complicated secret service operation now exactly accomplished having punktum: a simple explanation offers only the official, unproven version. How it complicates the OI was actual one can stattfindenen alone to from the 11.9th "Wargames" read off and the fact that we do not know also until today, what and how hit the targets there. See http://www.broeckers.com/NEADS_to_know.pdf "a beautiful enemy picture" is not probably the USA, but Osama is shop, for its participation on 11.9. there to today no court-firm proofs are however already, except a windy dossier of Phony Tony, which was however not for the use before court meant, with 2. Notice on the south tower as authors was certain, like us Fox communicated, at the latest however at 14.40 o'clock of the same daily, when Rumsfeld dictated its coworker: "emergency only U.B.L., but thus S.H." , which denied the act in the Ummat the of Pakistan, which delivered also no political statement, which sense and purpose of the terror could be, as it with the political, authentic terror up to then was usual, and desses alleged Pentagon confession video of full inconsistencies is. This is shop is too thickly, the video badly, the circumstances of the find strangely, the translation unsatisfactorily etc.. And which was at all with Tim Osmans recruiting in Jeddah, just, where according to jumping man the Visas for all possible terrorists was issued, which stood under the protection of the USA? I must warn you thus, if still times such a lubricant attempt comes, as in 2003, around the official version festzutrampeln, that serious consequences for your Reputation will have, since the half world knows meanwhile that it concerned also with 11.9.2001 a Inside the job. See my documentation here in addition:

and I meant to thank you, as well. It means a lot to me and, I'm sure, to other Americans, that people outside the US take an interest in 9/11. (Given that we're hell-bent on becoming THE world-dominating imperialist force of the 21st century and dictating policy to everyone else, it makes sense that you would be interested -- nonetheless, thank you for your efforts.)

I would like to know what the short sentence it translated as "My life is sucked." really means. Is it idiomatic? I'm thinking of using the English version as my tagline (jk).

You do not have to thank me, it's my patriotic duty, as the principle of this shit origins from all over the world, Germany included. I want a world not dominated by warmongers, fearsellers, fascist, drug trafficers and bold liars, let alone for the pursuit of happiness of my 1 and 1/2 year old daughter...

I give 50-50 on the following:
"No Plane Crash" at WTC
"4000 Jews"
"19 Arabs too stupid to do it"
Out of date BBC reports of "living hijackers"
"Hundreds/thousands of conspirators necessary"
"Why not use Iraqis?"
"Bush regime incompetent"
"Engineering an attack on their own financial center?!"
Conspiracy theory as therapy for people who need to make sense of a chaotic world
Diana
JFK
UFOs
Pearl Harbor
"New World Order," "Illuminati" or the Federal Reserve

On the "plus side" I give 50-50 for the following:
Opinion polls indicate widespread skepticism
"Mujahedeen did get US support in 1980s"
Toxic air
Iraq war lies

'Based on the comments from Bob Graham, it also appears they are going to focus on what they think are the "legitimate" reasons to doubt 9/11.'

In other words, a limtied hangout (sorry, am I going to get a pie in the face for that?). Under no circumstances will viewers be encouraged to question the need for the Global War On Terror and the trashing of civil liberties and due process.

That link just worked for me... They basically have Alex Jones, Korey Rowe (or Dylan, not sure if I know which is which), and ncle Fetzer making the case. In other words, NOT David Griffin, Steven Jones, or Kevin Ryan. There are a ton of XFiles type graphics and they showed a victim's sister asking "if it was a conspiracy then why did my brother go to work?" or something like that.

They have more CGI proof of a plane sneaking into the Pentagon, since it can be animated on a computer it must be true.

You wanna know what i think? Naw, I don't think you do... Anyway, I will wait to see it, but for now I'm classifying this as an attempt to discredit by putting less than the best face forward for the case for truth.

> and they showed a victim's sister asking "if it was a > conspiracy then why did my brother go to work?"

I watched the preview. It's unclear what the victim's sister means exactly. I have to wonder if she's saying, "my brother was Jewish, and he went to work", i.e. rebutting "the Jews did it" foregone conclusion theory. No thanks to all the despicable fake and real Nazi’s here for that one. Focusing on foregone conclusion theories, especially that particular one, is the easiest way to discredit any alternative 9/11 viewpoint.

I too suspect that this will be an attempt to discredit by putting less than the best face forward.

Hey guys, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask but maybe you can help me... Im trying to find "911 press for truth" with spanish subtitles or something to that effect... i want as many people as possible to watch it here in my hometown in mexico but most of my friends and family dont speak english... so any help would be great!

For what it's worth here's what I wrote about their last episode on Princess Diana;

I just got through watching the “Conspiracy Files” on BBC 2 about the death of Princes Diana, and frankly it was headache inducing. I don’t know enough about her death and the issues surrounding it, so I don’t really know what the hell happened to her accident or otherwise. Although I would say after becoming aware of just how wrong things are with 9/11, an assassination like that wouldn’t be beyond possibility.

This program starts off with fast flashing abrasive imagery with lots of green and black colouring, and with close-ups of single eyes etc. It’s very nauseating I found, and I’m sure most people watching didn’t appreciate it either. This program seemed to have a very strong bias throughout; the narrator was a female voice who readout a narrative that was full of words like “conspiracists” and “conspiracy theorists” “conspiracy theories”. It labelled and smeared everyone who was sceptical by insinuating that their “claims” aren’t “credible”, for the whole duration of the program. And steered the tone firmly in the direction of favouring the official version of events. It used so many strawman arguments that I was even able to guess what was coming up. For example after a series of points debunking certain aspects brought up by “conspiracists”, the next point was “Diana’s ambulance past a number of closer hospitals, why was this conspiracists ask?”, the answer: “the hospital she was being sent to had vital specialist facilities”.

They seemed to pick “theories” that could be answered with very commonsense answers, which appeal to people’s logic and in turn give the impression that the whole thing is just nonsense. At one point the narrator even says something like “its all based on blind faith”. It ends with placing a guilt trip on those questioning her death by bringing up the Princes (William and Harry), and saying how those closest to Diana don’t want to have her legacy tarnished with allegations like this. And that may be a fair point, but the whole program was geared towards suppressing and playing down scepticism. And if you think about what the rest of the “series” is going to be like after that, it’s almost guarantied that they’re going to follow an exact same blueprint. This didn’t seem like an honest evaluation of the issue, it seemed much more like something trying its absolute hardest to convince the public and reinforce the official narrative.

Thanks to a dedicated poster and campaigner on this forum (whose name is associated with the initials SG), I put this together and sent it round my e-mail list. I believe Ian Crane is also posting something, so you might like to wait for that as well.

Review - and decide on your action:

=============================

We have discovered from a source inside the BBC that there are 2 versions or "edits" of the upcoming conspiracies documentary - one of which is a "whitewash" version. Our source tells us the guy pushing for the Whitewash Version to be broadcast is GARTH ANCIER:

e-mail the addresses below, and any others you may be aware with a message like the one below. Let them know we know the gist of the game. We know from our source there are people in the BBC pushing for the truth to come out - so let's hear it for them. Well, what are you waiting for?

We have discovered from a source within the BBC that there are 2 versions of the upcoming "Conspiracies" documentary about 9/11. We understand that there are people in the BBC who want the truth to come out and other ones that don't. We understand that the main person backing the "whitewash" version is Mr Garth Ancier.

Of course, as you will realise, this calls into question the standards of professionalism, journalism, honesty and integrity which seem to be at work in the BBC. We KNOW 9/11 was an inside job, and however many times David Icke or "No Planes" is mentioned in relation to it, it will not detract from the smoking guns which more and more people have now seen and understand.

We therefore strongly advise that the "honest" version is broadcast on Sunday, because if it is not, the BBC's reputation as a news broadcasting entity will be forever tarnished or destroyed. Clearly, we must also call into question the motives of an executive who can (or is trying to) influence what is to be broadcast, and this matter will need serious review also.

As you may know, William Rodriguez, Decorated hero and survivor of the World Trade Centre Disaster, is speaking around the UK. His testimony blows apart the official story of 9/11 and this will likely have been heard and read by 10s or 100s of thousands of people by the end of this month.

So, we know what the game is, and we are now "calling your bluff". We are watching you and waiting for your response.